next please. context. we have seen these before. next. i'm not going to try to read these to you. they are in your package, but they are basically issues brought up bit community, by the commission and by individuals and our responses to them. next, please. the last one on this list here addresses bmr units. we are proposing two on-site, bmr units and one in-lieu fee. next, please. i would like to look here. this is kind of like describing the result of the process over the last six months. the major design revisions on the left are all of the parking goes into one basement, with one garbage -- garage entrance. the height has been reduced one

full story, and it's actually down to 53'. the mapping along clay, adjacent to 1630 clay. four story against four story the same is true of the larkin. it was at one time a gap that was opening onto larkin between the historic building and our new building so this design is now significantly different one than shown to the commission and we have included a community room, which we'll discuss. it's still ongoing discussions about how the community room will be used and under what kind of conditions and terms. the community considerations on the right we're including three community parking spaces, which could be either rented or purchased. we have one car shed designated

for public use and one car shed dedicated to use by the residents. the street greening, we have a proposal that is not a contract yet, but we have a proposal from the project sponsor to provide up to 100 street trees on both sides and the 1600 block of clay. this is a program that would be contracted with friends of the urban forest and it would be managed with some financial assistance from the project sponsor by polk neighborhood association working with the community and property owners and friends of the urban forest. it would come with a five-year pre-paid maintenance program. the community room, the project sponsor will provide free use of the community room with a separate street access from larkin street. and this will be written into

the cc os in the building to be available for community use for five years. at the end of five years, ongoing use will be determined by what the preceding uses have shown. next, please. these are just highlights of the basic data. 27 units in the building. the reduction in size has changed the unit mix and size of some of the units and there are now more one-bedrooms than before and we have 32 parking spaces, 27 for 27 units, 3 for community assigned and two for car-share. excuse me. next, please. this is a little bit burnt out, i apologize, but you have it in your package. the rendering in the middle is the design rejected at the conditional use application in june. to the left is our first attempt at the demasing of the building and running along the bottom there are sequential

demasing proposals that were discussed with members of the community, polk neighbors to try to achieve a compromise that would work for all. in the end, we did something a little different from the right-hand slide. that is the design it's used to be. this is the design as it is now. we're going to do a little bit of back and forth here. what we have here -- and i will speak loud enough to be heard -- what we have here is an attempt to create ambiguity about the building . is it really one building? the

same concept [ inaudible ] >> if you can maybe -- so they can catch the audio ? thank you. >> next, please. this is how it used to be on larkin and the gap that runs through the back. that is how it used to be. next. and what we have done here is again taken the top story off, createed ad a tricomposition with a little bit of

ambigutility. on the left-hand section of the building there is an opening which is the entrance to the community room. the main entrance is where it always was, which was in the middle. next, please. significant reduction in scale and we have set the building back 18'. at the top floor. we have introduced this four-story element that nests 1360 clay and there is a chance as you walk around the building for you to get the pause between the elements and components of the building. it gives you a little bit of room to breathe as opposed to being one big building as it once was. next, please. this is just an aerial view of the model. and i just want you to focus on

the green, if you can. on the left-hand side is the courtyard and rear yard from the earlier scheme. and what we have done here is by closing the gap on larkin, we have been able to open the green l next to 1630 clay. that essentially gives an 18' wide area -- do i have to really stop after six years? can i have your permission just to continue? >> are you close to the end? >> yes. >> keep going, but i think we kind of get the idea. we realize the changes. finish up and maybe the commission has questions. >> let's roll very quickly through these. keep going, please. these are various views showing the setback. street view before-and-after. street view before-and-after. you will see the basements there.

the parking is there. thank you. this slide here i just want to spend ten seconds on this. the left-hand side is the stanley design, again 1630 clay street. the right-hand design is our former design 1630 clay. next. this is the current design. all of the windows except for one on the 5th floor are kept open for sunlight and light and to make sure that those windows that are l windows actually get some light. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate the tremendous amount of work that has gone into the revision of this. >> a lot coming from them, too. >> open up for public comment i have two speaker cards. [ reading speakers' names ].

>> good afternoon commissioners. i am the chair of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods planning and land use committee. we are very concerned that this was set up very dangerous precedence regarding the approval process. this project was denied twice before. and should have 12-month waiting period. and here it's only been three months and it's up for approval again. and we think this is a bad, bad precedent. as far as this project should be coming up in 12 months, not three months. other thing is that we find it somewhat distressing that the federal judge is going to

impose their will and save them time and force the city to go back or disregard city policy and process. we think that should not occur. an historic resource is been planed for destruction/demolition and if this should occur, there should be a significant community benefit. and the commission, i believe, commissioner wu has stated that the community benefit is not there. and it seems like this new project will not allow it to happen. there are plans for senior housing, senior affordable housing, which the city

drastically needs. the city does not need 27 more market-rate housing. a senior affordable project can provide, perhaps up to 40 or so units that the city drastically needs. we have met our goals for market-rate housing. we are far, far behind in regards to affordable housing. i would like to close by saying that coalition for san francisco neighborhoods supports adaptable use for senior housing or another preservation alternative. to pursue enforcement actions for building code and ceqa violations. please wait 12 months before this project is considered.

>> did you call rowena jen? >> yes. rowena had to leave and so i have this statement that they are back hacking up the building again. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? >> yes. good afternoon commissioners my name is elizabeth gordan and i with my co-owners own the building next door, 1630 clay street. it's a 6-unit residential building and i'm speaking on behalf of all the owners of 1630 clay street today. our building is the neighboring building most impacted bit proposed project. we have been supportive of this

project conditionally since 2006. with this said, when we last testified before you on june 28th, we reported that we were in discussion with the project sponsor and architect to address our concerns. we had yet however to reach an agreement and get that into a signed document. almost six months later we're definitely further down the road, and very encouraged by the progress that has been made on the overall design. but we still have some outstanding matters with this sponsor. of utmost priority to us has been maintaining as many of our original 11 property line windows as possible. windows that date back decades and decades if not to 1923 when the building was built. in anticipation of this project getting approved at some point and what we think was a very substantial showing of good faith on our part, we already

voluntarily removed at our own expense five of those 11 windows when our residential units were being remodeled between 2006 and 2009. at issue at this time is retention of our remaining six property line windows. the sponsor's new design does a good job of maintaining light and air for two of those remaining six windows. they are at the back of the building on our top-back unit. the proposed design apparently stops its building 3.5' away from three of our property line windows in the kitchens of our front units. the new plan though, if i understand it correctly, is that it does not match our light well mid-building. the new building runs right up to an alongside our building by about half of our light well.

this will further compromise necessary light into our bathroom and kitchen windows in our three front units. the plan also completely eliminates one of our property line windows in the dining room of our front unit. we need a detailed drawing of exactly how this building will impact our property line windows and need to reach an amicably place with this developer. we have asked him to participate in a pre-op meaning with the city or at least fund that so we can get clarity from the city, namely dbi and fire about what will happen with our remaining property line windows that are left. we would appreciate cooperation in that regard. we would like to continue to support the project, we would hope to be able to. >> thank you very much. calling up a couple more speakers. [ reading speakers' names ]

>> good afternoon commissioners. i have been coming to this podium to speak on this topic since dwight alexander was president of the commission. so you can call me snaggletooth today. a lot of things that were said today by the project sponsor's architect are true and factual. tom gave me a call and he got an email from director ram saying that we would like you to participate in a conference with judge bieler. the judge is a good communicator and we sat down and gave the project sponsor a simple framework. and after a couple of back and forth we watched the last

commission hearing, we watched it a few times. we took notes of everything that you said. and we gave those notes and comment back to the project sponsor, because we're not experts. you are experts also and i'm curious today what your thoughts are in terms of dialogue about this project. because we have all been at this a long time. i think we have made considerable progress. there is still discussion to be made about give-back, but personally, and from what i have learned from the project sponsor, i think there is an inent and willingness to have a dialogue to see this through. you know, there are some questions about the process. about why here here today? is this because of the suit? is it because of the judge? i will leave that to you to opine about. that is my testimony today. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon president fong and commissioners. my name is dawn and i'm with the middle polk neighborhood association. i come here today with a question that i need to share with you. it's a question that has been posed to me day after day after day in the past several weeks. and that is what process is being followed in this case? and i can't answer that question to the members of our association and the leaders of other associations that are asking me. is this a new process? is this a new way of doing things? will other developers be given this shorter process? because you know we just heard this case here in june. so we're back kind of quick on that. i would like to be able to really fully be able to answer that question when i am asked that.

and i cannot do that now. so some help on that would be very much appreciated. we also would appreciate some help as far as the timeframe is going on this. we're here in front of you just a couple of weeks before christmas and then a couple of weeks after christmas you want us to be back. there is all of this family stuff and christmas stuff that we need to do in the middle of it. why is it such a rush? can we not take a little bit more time in order to get the necessary community involvement that we need to have a successful case here? can we have some more time to please do that in a less rushed fashion? thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> thank you, members of the commission. my name is gordan egan and i am an attorney who represent the

owners of building. last monday night, the developer had a pre-op meeting and he sent out approximately 140 invitations to that meeting to people in the neighborhood. and it was publicized in some other ways. i know some community members publicized it further. at that meeting approximately 25 people attended. they were generally supportive of the building. i confess i was only there towards the end, but from my discussion with the architect and some others who were, there there wasn't a lot of dissension, or questions about the design you saw. most of the members of community who came to that meeting seemed fairly favorable towards that design. you could ask the architect if i am putting that out wrong, or maybe some community members. but in the time i was there and the people that i spoke to afterwards, the community is

fairly -- i'm not going to say overwhelmingly overjoyed with the building because it's a little different than what is there now . this will be one of the newer buildings in that entire neighborhood. it's on a corner. it's going to look a little different, yeah. but the ark architect working with the community has done a wonderful job doing that. we have spent the last year in discussions with the condo conversion and the developer, on resolving many issues that we have. we have spent the last six months in discussion with the community, discussing the design of the building. there are advocates for senior housing and we have met with them on several occasions. we have met with several housing developers. we had additional meetings with housing developers.

even though we're in contract with pacific polk, pacific polk has agreed to allow us to talk to senior housing developers about the property. he didn't have to do that. he did. so we are talking to senior housing developers with his permission. we don't believe that is going to work because as we presented to you six months ago when you approved the eir, it does not appear to us or and i don't mean to put words in their mouths, but to the planning department in their recommendation on the eir, it does not appear to the planning department that it makes any economic sense or is feasible to reuse the structure there as any kind of residential housing. we tried to do it in 2004. we first spoke to senior housing developers in 2010. we spoke to senior housing developers again. and we are now talking to them again, but we don't see that as

feasible. we're runing that course out as we can. the developer has done an unbelievable job of meeting with the community over the last six months. we have met with the community. i speak with members of community on a somewhat regular basis to talk and see if the developer is continuing to move forward. the reports that i get are that he is. we have a system in place now with regard to the building that if something occurs with regard to the building, members of community have the phone number and email of our property manager, and can report things directly to him. they do so. i think the members of the community will agree that they get results. it's not perfect. it doesn't work 100% of the time. somebody took our anti-sit barriers and painted them as candy canes last night. it's kind of a little christmas cheer, but that is what we're

putting up. but we're dealing with it. we have that report and we're dealing with it. you know, i want to point one thing out. the developers working on community benefit, the developer has -- since this project was presented to you in june, the developer has dropped 6,000-square-feet out of the building. i don't have the thing up there. he not only moved stuff around. he took out 6,000 feet. we're not just moving stuff around the chess board. we're throwing stuff off the table. it's not the same project it was. it's 6,000-square-feet less. he put all the stuff undergrounds. so in closing i would like to say that we're working hard towards having a resolution with the community. thank you. >> thank you. if you are ready? the first time you were up you

were giving us a message? >> i was just giving you rowena's letter because you called her and she had left and that is her message. >> okay. >> linda chapman. well, i'm really supposed to hear what i just heard. because you know, i'm in regular communication with the senior housing developers, the only ones that i know have been involved with this. although i know that brad believes that glide would also be very interested and maybe another. i think that either brad paul or i or don faulk would know if they were discussing this with senior housing developers. they met with tndc project managers, doing a preliminary analysis that went to the mayor's office of housing. they said they were very interested in it. now can this site be available?

you had turned down the conditional use. so we decided with don that the logical thing would be to get in touch with the methodist church and find out. the result was that this lawyer told the methodist that they shouldn't get involved with it and each and every methodist i talk to, they are all interested in senior housing, but the lawyer said no. so what was the result? tndc was subpoenaeded and threatened with litigation and they had a lot of expense. i think you have heard about that. so they want to come forward and do the full analysis, which might be thousands of hours and the offer that they were told would be welcomed after the judge ordered them to talk. all right? now the methodist administrator said we would love to do that and the attorney says my client

will not sell to anyone unless they pay off john's expenses. nobody else can buy the site. tndc nevertheless persifted persisted and i do believe this lawyer would be capable of doing something in that direction. they are the owners of the property still. all right? or the judge. brad is following up as i mentioned. there has been a lot of talk about all of this involvement with the community. i haven't seen it very much. there are interesting and lively meetings. this discussion did not occur there. it was mentioned negotiations were going on and others could join in the negotiating group, but others didn't want to.

rowena has gone and i talked to the architect and nobody is participating in that. they are not interested in negotiating that kind of project. i went to the pre-op meeting, you know? >> is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. opening up to commissioners. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. i guess the first issue which was raised on a number of occasions is why this is before us? maybe mr. sanchez could tell us the reason why this new project is before us. >> thank you. so first, this is just an informational item. this is not an action item and there is not a project before you to approve or disprove, but the planning code states no application proposing an amendment, conditional use or variance, the same or substantially the same as that which was disapproved shall be resnit smieed or reconsidered by the planning commission or zoning administrator within a

period of one year of effective action upon the earlier application this. is where the one-year bar has been raised and the planning code says you cannot submit the same or substantially the same project. it's a planning code provision and i reviewed the plans submitted and found it's not substantially the same, so it can come before you within the year. it's fully within your discretion when you have the hearing on that item and i don't know when that date would be. you would have a full public hearing with notification and you would have full discretion as you do for any other action that you take this. is no different than any other action you would be able too take on a project to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions. >> thank you very much. i think this is a very good project as it moves forward. i understand some of the concerns. the first issue that ha